docs(usage): type definitions aren't strictly necessary

[fzn0x]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for fakerjs ready!

Built without sensitive environment variables

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	22b4014
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/fakerjs/deploys/662675db58f59800088bc238
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-2840.fakerjs.dev
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.96%. Comparing base (b754dc6) to head (22b4014).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##             next    #2840    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   99.95%   99.96%            
========================================
  Files        2973     2973            
  Lines      212613   212613            
  Branches      943      601   -342     
========================================
+ Hits       212510   212529    +19     
+ Misses        103       84    -19     

see 2 files with indirect coverage changes

[ST-DDT]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

They might not be necessary there, but we have them there to reduce the cognitive load from the reader to guess what the method/field is supposed to do/return.

See also:

• https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/explicit-function-return-type/

What is your idea/intention with removing those (aka Why)?

[fzn0x]

type definitions aren't strictly necessary here

They might not be necessary there, but we have them there to reduce the cognitive load from the reader to guess what the method/field is supposed to do/return.

See also:

• https://typescript-eslint.io/rules/explicit-function-return-type/

What is your idea/intention with removing those (aka Why)?

Typings still included without specifying Users.

[fzn0x]

Improve the example for the Users type definition, or remove it altogether to allow users to explore the usage independently without encountering errors after choosing ESM or CJS.

[ST-DDT]

So the issue here is that the example on the readme uses a type that isnt specified anywhere on that page.

[matthewmayer]

Maybe remove "export" too? If it's just a standalone example.

[ST-DDT]

Maybe remove "export" too? If it's just a standalone example.

I'm undecided on that. Maybe a little bit on the keep it part because I hope this pushes the users to reuse their faker methods and it slightly catches more attention.